[music]

Brian Lehrer: It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WYNC. Good morning, everyone. On a day when Vladimir Putin turned 70 years old, and the Nobel Peace Prize Committee isn't giving him a cake but rather a pie in the face by awarding the Peace Prize this morning to three campaigners for human rights in Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine. We'll talk about who those human rights campaigners are during the show today, and if the Peace Prize can help end Putin's war.

Also today, with David Geffen Hall Lincoln Center reopening tomorrow after renovations, we'll have the president and artistic director of Lincoln Center on the show to talk about that, but also largely about the opening piece of music that they will present by composer Etienne Charles, which is about the people who used to live in that part of the Upper West Side who got displaced for the creation of Lincoln Center itself.

We'll try to do some oral history around that on the phones. If any of you were among those people, or if your parents or grandparents or anyone else you know was, it was back in the 1950s, that's all coming up, but we begin with this: As Election Day gets even closer, as Florida is still digging out from what Governor Ron DeSantis has called a 500-year hurricane, it's our midterm election series, 30 Issues in 30 Days Issue 10: Climate Change and the Race for Control of Congress.

Now, this was always scheduled for today just as a program note well before Hurricane Ian struck and thrust the issue more to the forefront of the election season. In fact, we'll begin to set this up with a clip of Republican Florida Senator Rick Scott. We played this the other day, but it's so relevant to this topic that we'll play it again. He was on All Things Considered in August of last year. He's talking to NPR's Ari Shapiro about climate change, and not denying that it's real, but not talking about preventing it either.

Rick Scott: "We've got to focus on the impacts of climate change, but you've got to do it in a manner that you don't kill our economy."

Ari Shapiro: "You're saying people need to survive hurricanes and get back to normal life. The UN is saying normal life is something of the past, and the future looks dire unless dramatic change happens now. It sounds like you're saying as long as it doesn't kill jobs or affect the economy."

Rick: "Well, what I think is we can do both. I think we can focus on the impacts of climate change and not put our jobs at risk and kill our economy."

Brian Lehrer: That's Florida Senator Rick Scott with Ari Shapiro on All Things Considered last year emphasizing how to adjust to the impacts of climate change rather than preventing it for the sake, he says, of jobs in the economy. That's kind of typical of where Republicans running for Congress this year are on the issue.

In June, House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy released a climate strategy that The Washington Post described at the time as increasing domestic fossil fuel production. If that sound, well, counterintuitive, we'll try to explain. It also included, as The Post described it, boosting exports of US liquified natural gas. Boosting those exports, which proponents say is cleaner than gas produced in other countries.

In addition, the House Republicans emphasize private sector innovations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions rather than controls on fossil fuels. Is there a Democratic and Republican way to fight climate change? Let's compare and contrast the two parties' approaches and how they're playing in this midterm election season, and if Hurricane Ian has changed anything.

With us now is Washington Post reporter Maxine Joselow, who wrote that story back in June, and covers climate and other environmental issues generally. Her latest article is about the oil and gas industries themselves considering whether to endorse government clean fuel standards. Maxine, thanks for coming on. Welcome to WNYC.

Maxine: Thank you for having me.

Brian Lehrer: That clip we played of Senator Rick Scott, Florida Republican, he's not up for re-election himself this year, so he's not a candidate in these midterms. Is the way he framed the climate challenge, the emphasis on adjusting to it and on jobs rather than preventing it, typical of the way many Congressional Republicans approach the issue?

Maxine: I think it is typical, Brian, and it's no longer a tenable or common position to have on the right that climate change is not real. That it's not being caused by humans. I think a big reason for that is we're seeing its effects already right now. As you noted, Hurricane Ian just hit Florida as a monster Category 4 storm. Climate change scientists say it had made that storm and other hurricanes more intense because ocean waters are much warmer than they used to be. That really turbocharges the storm as it moves over the ocean before making landfall.

When a lot of Republicans now talk about climate change, they're not outright denying that it exists. They know that we're seeing its impacts already, but a lot of them are not talking about the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which are primarily caused by the burning of fossil fuels. They're talking more about how do we adapt to the impacts that we're already seeing.

Brian Lehrer: Why did Kevin McCarthy, the House Republican leader, release a climate plan at all targeted for the midterm election season and embrace the reality of global warming as a national posture rather than do what we sometimes see in conservative media? What Trump spent a lot of his presidency doing one way or another, calling it a hoax or a vast exaggeration? We see how much inclination there is to believe Republican politicians when they say things like that about various topics.

Maxine: I think one potential explanation is that Republicans-- at least according to some of the sources I talked to for my story in June when this plan came out. Republicans recognize that they can't just be against whatever Congressional Democrats and the Biden administration are proposing on climate change and environmental and energy issues. They have to be for something, so this was, I think, an attempt to carve out what the party broadly would support on these issues and not just say, "We're against everything that Democrats are doing."

You also see polling showing that younger voters in both parties, who obviously will be more affected by climate change and its impacts in their lifetime, as well as suburban voters, becoming increasingly concerned about climate change and wanting their elected officials to do something about it.

Brian Lehrer: Listeners, we can take your phone calls if you think there's a Democratic or Republican approach to climate change. Republicans invited to call in and say if you accept the reality of human-caused climate change, but have a different approach than, say, what the Democrats passed in that big spending bill this year once Joe Manchin got on board, or anything else. Democrats, also others, 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692.

Climate activists, welcome to call in and talk about how maybe you're lobbying within the Democratic Party to go further than they've gone so far, or whatever the dynamics is. Is there a Republican and Democratic way to fight climate change? A more left and more right way to fight climate change as we talk about it as an issue in the midterm congressional races. You can cite any particular election campaign if you want to do that too. 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692, or tweet @BrianLehrer for Washington Post reporter Maxine Joselow, who covers climate and other environmental issues. 212-433-WNYC, or tweet @BrianLehrer.

Are they for real? [chuckles] I'll just put it that way. The Republicans, when they talk about increasing fossil fuel production in pursuit of reducing emissions. Because I see that was part of McCarthy's rhetoric at the time. "The Democrats just want to spend money. We actually want to reduce emissions." They're talking about reducing emissions, but they're also talking about increasing fossil fuel production, which is the primary cause of those emissions. How does McCarthy explain, if he even tries to, how those two fit together?

Maxine: Those are some great questions to be asking, Brian. I think McCarthy and other House Republicans, when I've talked to them and asked them about this very issue, you frequently hear them say that natural gas is cleaner than coal as a fossil fuel, which is true. Natural gas does have lower emissions than coal. Switching from coal to natural gas has accounted for a lot of the emissions reductions from the power sector in the United States. That is all true.

Putting that aside for a second, it's also true that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the foremost scientific body on this issue, has said it doesn't matter if you're talking about coal or natural gas. We need to rapidly phase out all extraction and production of fossil fuels, period, within the next 10 years to stave off catastrophic warming and to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, which is the goal of the 2015 Paris Agreement.

I think you're seeing Republicans seek to draw a distinction between types of fossil fuels and argue that natural gas as a whole is cleaner than coal, and that US liquefied natural gas is cleaner than that produced in other countries. Whereas I think you have scientists saying it doesn't matter what fossil fuel you're talking about. We need to get rid of all of them, and we need to get rid of them fast in order to reduce emissions.

Brian Lehrer: You mentioned reductions in recent years in greenhouse gas emissions from the energy sector. Is it going down rather than up in this country?

Maxine: No. I believe it is going up. Although in recent years it's gone down as a result of, as I said, switching from coal to natural gas. Continued reductions will be dependent on bolstering clean energy sources, zero carbon energy sources that don't produce any plant-forming emissions like solar energy, wind, geothermal, hydrogen, nuclear, as opposed to these fossil fuel sources. Actually right now, transportation is the biggest source of emissions in the country. It has overtaken the power sector, and industry and manufacturing carbon-intensive products is expected to overtake transportation sometime soon.

Brian Lehrer: Does your answer indicate that they're ready to throw coal overboard? Certainly, Joe Manchin isn't ready to throw coal overboard. I think you kind of made it sound like the Republicans by comparing how clean certain kinds of natural gas are to coal as a source of energy, by implication they're saying "We don't care about coal anymore. We're not going to protect the coal industry," but I'm not sure that that's really what they're saying. What are they saying?

Maxine: Well, I think I would draw a distinction between protecting the jobs of workers at existing coal plants in the country, and building new coal plants. I don't think anyone's really seriously talking about building new coal plants in America right now. The economics just don't make sense. It's cheaper in many parts of the country to build clean energy than it is to build coal. I think when supporters of the coal industry like, for example, Senator Joe Manchin or some Republicans that have coal in their districts talk about supporting the industry, they're not really talking about how we need to build new coal plants.

They're talking about making sure that workers in those coal communities either continue to have jobs at those coal plants or are able to be retrained in the clean energy jobs of the future that might someday replace them.

Brian Lehrer: Now on jobs, I'm going to play a campaign ad from one of the contentious races this year, the Senate race in Pennsylvania. This is from Democratic Senate candidate John Fetterman, who's running against Republican Dr. Mehmet Oz in Pennsylvania. From what I've read, Fetterman used to be for a fracking moratorium in his state but apparently is not anymore. This is an ad they're running called Climate Justice, and it says climate justice on the screen. It's not actually about climate. Rather, it's about ground-level conventional pollution. Listen.

John Fetterman: "Back in 2006, they wanted to run a four-lane interstate through a Black or Brown community that was already suffering historically high asthma rates. I called it 'environmentally racist policy,' and I was the only elected official in Western Pennsylvania to oppose this. And going forward, it's a constant struggle because communities like the ones that I live in have different environmental standards and outcomes. Environmental justice for every American is critical, and my role as United States Senator would be informed by the 14 years as a mayor of a community that has faced many environmental injustice challenges."

Brian Lehrer: Certainly, all the environmental injustice challenges that he talks about there are real. Obviously, constituents are concerned about that depending on where they live, but that ad is labeled Climate Justice and it wasn't about climate emissions. My understanding is because it's such a jobs producer in parts of Pennsylvania where Fetterman wants votes, he's backed off advocating a fracking moratorium in the state. I wonder if you're familiar with that campaign in particular or if that's emblematic at all, after we've been talking about Republicans in the first part of this segment, the line that some Democrats have to walk on climate in the election season.

Maxine: I am familiar with that race. I've written about it during the primary. Before John Fetterman won his primary, he and Conor Lamb were considered the two front runners in that race on the Democratic side to challenge Mehmet Oz in the general election. Neither of them has expressed support for a fracking ban, in part because of-- well, really purely because of the unique political ramifications of doing so in a state like Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania is second only to Texas in natural gas production, and obviously, there are environmental justice concerns with that.

Living near fracking operations, research has shown, is linked to breathing in a lot of dirty air pollution, groundwater pollution, premature deaths, and other health conditions from that. At the same time, labor unions and other advocates for fracking have noted that the fracking industry in Pennsylvania does support tens of thousands of jobs. In seeking to appeal to more moderate voters, Fetterman has had to back away from a fracking ban because he doesn't want to alienate those voters who see it creating jobs in the state or creating an economic lifeline in the state.

Brian Lehrer: Yes. It sounds like Pennsylvania is in a relatively unique or unusual position with respect to the position that it puts a Democratic candidate in because of all those jobs. Here's a tweet though from a listener that says, "Why isn't there more discussion and evidence on how green energy is great for jobs? Creation, maintenance, and management of wind, solar, kinetic and biomass energies need humans to be involved in governments to subsidize them, at least as equally as fossil fuels." What would you say to that listener who wrote in on Twitter?

Maxine: I would say there absolutely is a discussion about clean energy creating jobs coming from this White House and this administration. I think President Biden often likes to say that when he talks about combating climate change he's talking about creating millions of good-paying union jobs. I think there's estimates coming from environmental groups that are supportive of this big climate law that Democrats just passed. President Biden just signed into law the inflation Reduction Act showing that it will create a lot of jobs.

Whether it's electricians who are going to be installing heat pumps and other climate-friendly appliances in people's homes, or it's people constructing wind turbines or installing solar panels, there are those projections of green energy jobs for the future.

Brian Lehrer: Let's take a phone call. Tom in Little Silver, New Jersey, you're on WNYC. Hi, Tom.

Tom: Yes. Good morning. Thanks for taking my call and thanks, Brian, for doing this segment every week. It's really important. Main point I want to make is that in spite of the fact that there's much good action that will be taken in the Inflation Reduction Act, that one of the main things that we still should be considering extremely seriously is putting a carbon fee on greenhouse gases. That the best approach would be to refund that money as a dividend to all the citizens of our country so people would have the money to take action on their own with this carbon fee.

Many modeling groups, including a group in Columbia University called [unintelligible 00:19:50], has done a lot of studies showing that if we don't put a carbon fee we're not going to really take all the actions that we must take to address this crisis. That was the main point I wanted to make.

Brian Lehrer: Tom, thank you very much. Maxine, obviously this conversation has been going on for decades now. John McCain, when he was running for president in 2008 against Barack Obama, they were actually on the same page on limiting the total amount of carbon that industry and individuals would be allowed to produce in this country.

They called it cap-and-trade. Cap the total amount, let companies trade pollution credits basically. Al Gore once upon a time talked about a carbon tax, like the caller is discussing. Didn't you report on the energy industries themselves, fossil fuel industries, oil and gas coming out for some kind of carbon tax not that long ago?

Maxine: Yes. You're absolutely right. The whole history of carbon pricing in the US is a long history. Last year the American Petroleum Institute, the oil and gas industry's main lobbying arm, came out in support of a carbon tax and the idea of taxing heavy emitters, greenhouse gas emissions. Although there was some criticism at the time that the industry was supporting a carbon tax because they felt like it would never actually pass Congress. That there wasn't enough political support for the idea. It allowed them to appear as though they were for this very powerful climate policy when in reality that policy did not have a high chance of being enacted.

Brian Lehrer: Wow. That's worth lingering on for a second. What an act of greenwashing that would be. Is that the right word? If they are trying to bolster their image in a climate context by saying we're for the ultimate thing that we've been against for decades, a carbon tax on our products, but they're saying they're for it because they know it'll never pass.

Maxine: Greenwashing is something that I encounter all too commonly as a climate reporter. You see it coming from government. You see it coming from corporations. In the case of carbon tax, I think there's been a lot of reflection among climate experts after this big climate law, the Inflation Reduction Act, passed about what can this tell us about the type of climate policy that can pass Congress.

For decades, a lot of people have been pushing for a carbon tax to pass Congress but with little success, little to show for it. As you mentioned, Al Gore tried. There was the Waxman-Marque cap-and-trade bill that passed the House but died in the Senate about 10 years ago. Some folks had been reflecting that the approach taken in the Inflation reduction Act is largely carrots, not sticks. What I mean by that is offering individuals and consumers and companies incentives in the form of tax credits and subsidies to transition to lower emissions, whereas carbon tax is more of a stick. It's punishing them if they don't reduce their emissions.

It really makes you question if a carbon tax is a viable political option in this country, or if we're going to see more of the carrots approach instead.

Brian Lehrer: Do they have carbon taxes in other industrial countries? Do they have that in Europe or Japan, for example? Did they go at it in that way?

Maxine: There's something related called-- This is getting in the weaves of climate policy. There's something related called a carbon border adjustment mechanism or CBAM, which is something that the European Union has put in place. It's kind of like climate policy wrapped up in trade policy. The idea is that you tax imported products from countries that have looser environmental standards and those products are made with higher emissions. You're both inherently putting a price on carbon, but also wrapping it up in this protectionist trade policy.

Brian Lehrer: We'll come back in a minute and finish up with Maxine Joselow on our 30 Issues in 30 Days election series, Issue 10: Climate and the Race for Control of Congress. She has a really interesting article that dropped this week about things that the oil and gas industries are saying, therefore now, which could affect the debate. We'll touch on a few other things. Then we're going to cover the state of emergency that Mayor Adams just declared for New York City a few minutes ago. He's declaring a state of emergency in regards to the many asylum seekers who are arriving or are being sent to New York. We'll get a reaction to that from a member of City Council.

That's all coming up. Stay with us. Brian Lehrer on WNYC.

[music]

Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC as we finish up with Maxine Joselow who covers climate and other environmental issues as a Washington Post reporter. Issue 10 in our 30 Issues in 30 Days: Midterm election series. We're comparing Democrats' and Republicans' approaches to climate change at the congressional level.

Maxine, are the Democrats running on the so-called Inflation Reduction Act? I think they link their claim about it reducing inflation largely to what they would do with respect to climate, but it's really more of a greenhouse gas emissions reduction act than a short-term inflation reduction act. Explain where from the Democrat's point of view, one of the big accomplishments of the Biden administration so far, climate and inflation intersect.

Maxine: I think you are seeing a lot of Democrats on the campaign trail touting the Inflation Reduction Act and trying to sell it to voters as a big legislative accomplishment that Democrats were able to get through with control of Congress and to say that that's a reason why they should continue to have unified control of Congress after the midterms. I think not all Democrats are necessarily highlighting the climate investments in the law in the same way that they're highlighting the health provisions in the law. It's not just obviously a climate bill, but also a climate health tax policy bill.

There are provisions in there that poll really well and are really popular with voters around lowering the cost of prescription drugs for seniors on Medicare, for example. You don't just see Democrats touting this as a climate law, although obviously it would do a lot to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and combat climate change. You also see them talking about it through a health lens as well and through an inflation reduction lens. That's obviously the name of the bill that Senator Joe Manchin and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer when they announced the name, they called it the Inflation Reduction Act.

Obviously, Republicans have sought to argue that it wouldn't actually reduce inflation. That that is the name they agreed on after several iterations previously called the Build Back Better Act.

Brian Lehrer: Are there any swing districts in Florida in the House races that Hurricane Ian has put this issue more into play for?

Maxine: That is a great question. To be honest, I haven't been following the Florida races quite as closely, but I do know and I'm familiar with the history a bit in Florida. There's a former congressman named Carlos Curbelo in Florida who lost his reelection race in 2018 after making climate change actually a really top priority of his time in Congress, co-founding a bipartisan climate caucus and introducing legislation, as we were just talking about, to institute a carbon tax.

He lost reelection. He represents a district that is extremely vulnerable to sea level rise. The argument among his supporters, and I suspect if you talk to him, would be that he didn't lose because he championed climate action, but for other factors that were at play in the race.

Now I think you see Florida Republicans in the wake of Hurricane Ian not outright denying climate change. Recognizing that it's real, that it's a problem, but focusing primarily on issues of resilience and adaptation and things like building sea level walls to make Florida more resilient and its communities more resilient to extreme weather events that we know are being fueled by climate change. They're focusing less on, as we were discussing earlier, the need to reduce emissions from burning fossil fuels, one of the primary causes of climate change.

Brian Lehrer: Here's Todd in Brooklyn calling about that Pennsylvania Senate race. Todd, you're on WNYC. Hello.

Todd: Hi, Brian. Hi guys. Thanks for taking my call. I just wanted to mention we talked about jobs in Pennsylvania and how fracking is good for people in Pennsylvania or seen as being good for people in Pennsylvania because it creates jobs. I think it's also a matter of-- I'll tell a very quick story. During the pandemic, I went to Pennsylvania, a small town, to pick up a truck with a friend.

We met a guy. The guy selling a truck said, "I put this thing on my property owned by the fracking company, and they pay me the equivalent of $180 a month to keep it there." Apparently, that's happening all over the state. Yes, it's jobs, but it's also these incentives that are going to citizens for allowing these companies to put the infrastructure on their land. The same thing needs to be happening with renewables, I would say.

Brian Lehrer: Yes. Todd, very interesting. Interesting context. We talked about Fetterman, the Democratic candidate in Pennsylvania, Maxine, modifying his earlier position that was for a fracking moratorium as he runs statewide for Senate and wants the votes of people who want those fracking jobs to remain. He doesn't say that anymore. At least he's not saying it right now. What about Dr. Oz? Is he a climate denier?

Maxine: That is a great question. I am not as familiar with Dr. Oz's record on climate change. I think he hasn't really spoken about it as much, so less is known about it. He has given interviews on Fox News and told Fox's Sean Hannity that he's focused on "energy independence" which republicans, often when they're referring to energy of independence they're talking about making the US a net producer, a net export of energy, including fossil fuels.

Brian Lehrer: Before you go, your article this week was headlined Oil and Gas industry’s top lobbying arm considers another climate policy. Apparently, there was a meeting yesterday and they were thinking about endorsing some kind of energy reduction or fossil fuel reduction strategy. What do they actually do?

Maxine: My latest article for the Climate 202 newsletter that I write for The Washington Post was about the American Petroleum Institute having a meeting at a downtown DC hotel related to a clean fuel standard, which is a climate policy aimed at reducing emissions from transportation, primarily from cars and trucks. I got a copy of the meeting agenda, which said that API was looking to hear about the potential benefits of this policy from automakers, from biofuel producers, from other industry interests with a stake in cutting emissions from transportation.

It does seem to be gaining traction as a policy that API might support after they backed a carbon tax last year. On the other hand, as you and I talked about earlier in the show, Brian, API faced some criticism when it came out in support of a carbon tax with folks saying it's easy for them to say they support it when it doesn't have a clear shot of passing Congress. I think with a clean fuel standard the same could be said, to a lesser extent, in that there isn't legislation that's been introduced yet to establish a clean fuel standard. It's still in the very early stages.

Brian Lehrer: It must be a subtle act of lobbying, [chuckles] if that's the lobbying arm of the oil and gas industry. They're lobbying Republicans in Congress for a clean fuel standard, but Republicans in Congress won't vote for one. How are they lobbying, or do they say, "You know, we've decided this is good for America"? Wink, wink.

Maxine: That is a good question that I haven't gotten to ask them directly yet, so stay tuned. Hopefully, I'll have some more reporting on that. All I know so far is that they had that meeting, which wasn't necessarily lobbying per se. More of just an industry workshop where they were talking about the benefits of this, which I imagine at some point they will translate that into lobbying.

Brian Lehrer: Last thing. There was a SurveyUSA - was it called SurveyUSA? - poll, which found 6% of Americans, or likely voters, say the climate is their number one issue. When you think about 6%, that certainly doesn't rival inflation or abortion rights or democracy in peril, but it's a slice of the electorate, 6%, that's greater than the margin of victory in many close swing district races. I wonder, if you have an observation on this, if you think they play as swing voters or more as Democrats, people on the left, who will either turn out or not bother to turn out if they don't think the Democratic candidate's position is strong enough. Like Green New Deal.

My understanding is that this is why Kevin McCarthy came out with a Republican climate position at all. It's because that 6% was meaningful to him. It's largely young voters who they want to attract. It's voters of color who they want to attract more. I wonder if you see that 6% number as playing in a certain way, and whether it's swing voters who want to be assured that both parties are serious to some degree about climate, or whether it's potential Democrats who will either stay home or not, and it's a turnout issue.

Maxine: That is a great question. Actually, it's good timing to ask me this because I'm working on a piece that is about a poll that The Washington Post and ABC News did together that found something similar. They found that about half of registered voters say climate change is either very important or one of the most important issues in their vote for Congress in the midterms although overall climate change still ranked below the six other issues that were tested in the poll, which included the economy, abortion, crime, and immigration.

Among the voters who said climate was important, the results were divided largely along party lines. About 8 in 10 Democrats said climate change was at least very important in their vote compared with just 27% of Republicans. I would imagine--

Brian Lehrer: That's so different. What a partisan divide, right? 80% compared to 27% saying it's an important issue to their vote.

Maxine: Yes. The question you asked about the 6% in the other poll, I would imagine that is probably mostly Democrats as a result of the polling that The Post and ABC News did. I have heard some big environmental groups like the League of Conservation Voters, when I talk to folks there, say that they are worried about Democrats who care about climate change being at risk of staying home on Election Day or not voting.

That's really important to reach those voters. Educate them about the Inflation Reduction Act. Educate them about how that bill could help them not only transition to clean energy but lower their home electricity and utility bills and make sure that those people turn out.

Brian Lehrer: Maxine Joselow covers the environment for The Washington Post. Thanks so much for being our guest on Issue 10 of 30 Issues in 30 Days: Congressional Races and the Issue of Climate. Thanks a lot.

Maxine: Thanks so much.

 

Copyright © 2022 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.